If you force people to pick one of the listed office-seekers when none of them represent that person's beliefs, you might as well hold a gun to their head and make them choose a particular candidate.
Simple fix to your issue -- add a value of "abstain". Thus if there is no acceptable candidate, you effectivly don't vote. But your abstention is tallied and is not just a "I didn't feel like voting" it's a "Hey dumb-ass you didn't give me an acceptable candidate to vote for."
Well yeah, that takes care of the "none of the above" folks, but what about those who want to vote "no confidence" because they don't believe in the system? Or those who feel it's immoral to force their beliefs on others, even the very little forcing that's the result of voting? Personally, I think forced voting would be as immoral as mandatory military service. Neither are really appropriate for a truly free society.
UN peackeepers in Korea, Cyprus, Iraq, Kosovo, etc
You misspelled "US" there.:)
Seriously though, when's the last time the UN sent in any significant peacekeeping force that wasn't mostly US troops? Korea was pretty multi-national, but it still mostly US troops.
The one barrier it doesn't remove, however, is the economic one that provides Internet access to some but far from all. Millions of poor households receive monthly telecom discounts on just their phone lines--how/why could they shell out for even dialup service? Low-income citizens still constitute an enormous chunk of the non-voting population, which is big enough in itself.
This all assumes, of course, that the reason the poor don't vote is accessability issues. I suspect it's more a problem of not having anything worth voting for. When it's essentially a choice between two slick jackasses in suits, neither of which represent your interests, why even bother voting?
Maybe it would be appropriate to punish people who fail to vote?
Absolutely not. The right to abstain is as important as the right to choose one of the listed candidates. If you force people to pick one of the listed office-seekers when none of them represent that person's beliefs, you might as well hold a gun to their head and make them choose a particular candidate.
My point is, that something as important as a credit card info page by AOL would undoubtedly be proofread at least once, and thefact that it's rife with errors should have tipped them off that it was a scam.
You're right, it should tip them off that it's a scam. However, most people have atrocious spelling skills, and so would miss some of these errors (esp. asterisk). Second, once you get used to reading over spelling errors (i.e. over IM, in email, on/.), it becomes easier to read over spelling errors all the time. I don't think that people have contextual spelling error detection (tm). Rather, I think people have one "mode" of reading, and that their tolerance for spelling errors is growing as they read more unedited material. So ultimately, I don't think that people even saw the spelling errors, thus it didn't tip them off.
Good points. I'm one of those people who can spell, so the idea that someone can look at a bunch of misspelled words and not notice sometimes strikes me as
inconceivable. Of course, then I run into the same thing (in reverse) from guys at work when they find out I don't know how to play "futbol"....
COBOL on big iron will never die. that's for the same reason one of my clients' elevator system is powered by a 100 year old solid state system. he walked me upstairs to show it off. lots of zapping and clicking noises. the thing runs 15 stories worth of 2 elevators and has for 40 years in that building (yes, bought used).that reason is reliability. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
First off, "solid state" means "no moving/mechanical switching", which a room full of relays does not fit the definition of. Second, I seriously doubt that system is 100 years old-- more likely it's closer to 60, as 100 years ago most elevators were operated by a man in a silly uniform pulling a lever in the elevator car. Third, relay-and-solenoid elevator controls aren't more reliable than modern electronic systems. The reason people don't replace them is because the cost is usually prohibitive, and the failure rate on older systems isn't usually bad enough to warrant replacement. It generally comes down to a question of "do you want to call the elevator tech every 2 weeks at $250 a visit to fix bad relays, or plop down $80,000 for installation of a new UNIX based electronic controller?"
In the future computers will be an ever more integral part of our lives, and the need for higher and higher customization will exist for more and more people. Software companies won't be able to keep up, and more and more people will depend on coding their own customization.
I think his point was that when customizing the interface becomes a need, it won't require anything even remotely resembling "coding" to customize it. Essentially, tools always appear to reduce the amount of of informational "buy in" necessary to achieve a given goal. I would be willing to wager that computer interface customizability will NEVER reach the point where one needs to learn a CLI in order to effectively adjust the system to one's needs. We passed that milestone back in '84, when the mass-migration of commodity computer systems to GUIs began. Flexibility and power notwithstanding, the Great Unwashed Masses will never again need to learn another CLI to use a computer. I'd lay money on that assertion.
I'd rather read Delphi code from a marginal programmer than C++ code. But hey, that's just my take.
True, ObPasc is an easier read when dealing with someone else's uncommented code. I think much of my dislike comes from having had to make changes to a crawling horror of a Pascal application that really needed to be re-done in C, if not C++.
Is the golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do to you) considered religious? Otherwise why can't that be the rule for ethics?
That doesn't work because it assumes everyone wants the same things done to them. What do you do about (extreme example) someone who wants others to kill him? Sick person, but proper ethics wouldn't tell him to kill others.
I'd also like to see First-aid and basic emergency procedures a required part of the curriculum... it really sucks to be the only one at an accident scene who knows first aid when you're one of the casualties.
Damn straight. I remember lying in the road with a shattered leg after getting hit on my motorcycle and having to tell people to get a blanket for when I go into shock. People want to help, but it's no good when all they can think to do is pull the keys out of your wrecked motorcycle and say "here's your keys, dude". Yeah, thanks, I'll be heading home soon with my shattered femur....
I was working with the military at the time of GWI and I know for a fact that these figures are so far from true that I think you simply made them up. Not only was most of their hardware supplied by us but their support staff was as well. My dept had to stop a contract that we were working on for them.
Working "with the military" during the Gulf War, huh? I can beat that pair with a full house. I was in the military. 98C01LF8 - Signal Intelligence Analyst(linguist)(tactical). I ended up playing "cleanup" in the desert after the first wave of my division passed through, and what I saw was mostly Soviet manufacture equipment. I have pictures of me standing next to the smoking wreck of a BTR-70. Which US company makes and exports the BTR-70, smart guy? Or how about the T-72? Or the BMP-2? Or the AK-fuckin'-47?
I personally believe my own eyes over what you heard your "department" may have been working on. But hey, you'll probably just say I'm making all this up, right? Doesn't matter. This is only/.
> but the problem may lie with Delphi, dontcha think?
Elaborate please. It's still the best tool for whipping out large native Win32 apps.
I'd have to disagree on that one, man. I find C++ Builder has all the advantages of Delphi, but it's C++ rather than the abomination that is object pascal.
But in reality the US supplied just as much, if not more, materials to Iraq than the Europeans did.
The Iraqi military was 70% Russian/Soviet equipment, %20 French, and %10 Other(mostly European). The French are well-known arms-whores. The US doesn't sell to countries it decides are "evil".
it looks like you still pay the price in Blood these days, but you honestly think the US went in there out of the good of their heart? When was the last time the US did something just out of pure humanism?
Kosovo? Somalia? I defy you to find ANY pressing national interest for the US in places like that.
Despite that there even is Photograhic evidence that Rumsfeld was shaking hands and telling jokes with Saddam.
(no debate is complete without a Hitler reference)
I'm sure Neville Chamberlain had a jolly time negotiating "peace in our time" with Hitler. National relationships change all the time. Furthermore, diplomacy is often about glad-handing the opposition while simultaneously letting him know through "back channels" that you could blow them to pieces if they get out of line.
Dont know if you've noticed, but the democrats and the republicans ARE THE SAME THING. They both want the same thing in the end, just have subtly different ways of going about it.
Personally, the differences between them have always reminded me of that old Miller Lite beer commercial. You know the one where two groups of tough guys are arguing in a bowling alley about the beer's best quality. One side shouts "less filling!" then the other side shouts back "tastes great!" (repeat until 30 seconds are up). Meanwhile, I'm watching it and thinking "that shit's nasty; I'd rather have something else". But in the case of parties here in the US, we got Lite Beer only.
This attitude is demeaning to the young. There is some evidence to suggest that your intelligence and learning ability peaks early in life and then drops off gradually as you get older.
"Intelligence" and "learning ability" are both metrics of potential. Potential is largely irrelevant on its own. What makes it valuable is time spent gaining knowledge and experience. This is why 18 year olds aren't immediately drafted to serve in legislatures/parliaments.
Yet the young are condemned or ignored if they dare to be idealistic.
Idealism is easy when you have little knowledge or experience and can look at complex problems and view them as simple matters of principle. In principle, we shouldn't polute at all. In reality, even simple acts like making a cooking fire and taking a crap are polluting. The reason the young are laughed at for their idealism is because idealism handwaves much of reality.
That should never happen. Last thing we need are people's freedom of speech being suppressed. Academia, believe it or not, is the bastion of free speech. I would prefer if it remains that way. If what this guy says is a bunch of nonsense, well, people will just ignore him.
The right to free speech only means that the government can't jail you for saying things it doesn't like. Free speech doesn't immunize you against people thinking you are an ass, nor does it prevent them from having second thoughts about your competence in the job they hired you for.
the "short, though regular, journey from mail box to trash can . . . is an acceptable burden, at least so far as the Constitution is concerned." Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 US 60 (1983) (internal citations omitted)
I would expect that the same holds true for phone calls.
Not necessarily. Paper mail can be dealt with at whatever time is convenient for the recipient. Phone calls happen in real time. Saying that a short trip to the trash once in a while is not onerous depends heavily on the fact that said trip can be scheduled for convenience. Phone calls can't. Counter-arguments involving answering machines and voicemail aren't applicable because such things aren't part of standard phone service. Really, it'd require another judgment call. The previous ruling re:junt postal mail isn't entirely applicable.
The parent did say
This would seem to allow a licensing procedure for all arms, and screening of owners to insure that will fulfill the duty of defending the free state rather than attacking the free state.
and nowhere in the parent post does it say that the guns should be
"controlled by laws and limited by strict guidlines".
You're saying that "licensing and screening" isn't the same as "controlled by laws"? Whatever, man. My point was that he was obviously taking the word "regulated" from the 2ndAmd to mean something other than what it meant to the writers of said Amd. Also, his interpretation of Article 1, Sec 8 as giving the gov't power to "regulate" the militia is incorrect-- it gives the government the power to organize people into a unit and give them guns and training, but by no means could this be interpretted to mean that ONLY the government can do so.
In fact is pretty much aggrees with the statement
"practiced and skilled"... referring to "regular troops" (men who could shoot well)
i.e. licensing procedures to insure that owners of firearms are practiced and skilled.
What? That makes no sense. Licensing does absolutely nothing to promote skill, it is (by definition) strictly a limitation on access. Limiting access is exactly what the 2nd amendment prohibits!
Yes, it would be better if everybody drove on the side of the road he wishes and the voltage in the plug was different in each town.
Nice try, but agreeing on the side of the road we drive on is a safety issue. Wireless phone protocols are not. As for the voltage thing, please show me the government regulation that sets the voltage. Can't find it? That's because the market decided upon a standard, but only after the early providers fought it out with incompatible systems. Don't you know the whole Tesla's AC vs. Edison's DC story?
Next time, when you pull out arguments, pull them from a less stinky place.
You're the second guy to respond to the parent saying "how come people don't pick up on the spelling/grammar errors?", and both of you had spelling errors in your posts!
People should expect/overlook spelling errors in something as ephemeral as a/. post. My point is, that something as important as a credit card info page by AOL would undoubtedly be proofread at least once, and thefact that it's rife with errors should have tipped them off that it was a scam. Cripes, I didn't say I was going to spell everything right in my post, did I? Get with the program, man.
So, should the NRA be censored? At first blush, I would say probably not, but to tell you the truth I really don't know for sure.
Actually, that's not even the full question at hand. The real question is "should the NRA's political site be blocked, while their political opponent's site (on the same subject but with opposite opinions on that same suject) is NOT blocked. They're blocking the NRA Institute for Legislative Action's site, which is as boring a policy-pusher site as the Brady Campaign site that's NOT blocked. It's obviously some dingbat at Symantec's personal bias showing. But more to the point, none of this is the real issue! Symantec can block whatever they want. The only issue is whether public-funded agencies (e.g. libraries, schools) should be using blocking software with arbitrary personal opinions influencing the blocked site lists.
If someone is waiving a full automatic assault rifle around, killing people in the process, I'd say that's a pretty big pro-gun rhetoric.
Hard to engage in rhetoric (speaking) while firing a machine gun. I understand you're making a (somewhat snide) point, but you fail in that shooting people is no more "pro-gun" than running people over is "pro-automobile".
Slashdot Mirror
Simple fix to your issue -- add a value of "abstain". Thus if there is no acceptable candidate, you effectivly don't vote. But your abstention is tallied and is not just a "I didn't feel like voting" it's a "Hey dumb-ass you didn't give me an acceptable candidate to vote for."
Well yeah, that takes care of the "none of the above" folks, but what about those who want to vote "no confidence" because they don't believe in the system? Or those who feel it's immoral to force their beliefs on others, even the very little forcing that's the result of voting? Personally, I think forced voting would be as immoral as mandatory military service. Neither are really appropriate for a truly free society.
You misspelled "US" there. :)
Seriously though, when's the last time the UN sent in any significant peacekeeping force that wasn't mostly US troops? Korea was pretty multi-national, but it still mostly US troops.
This all assumes, of course, that the reason the poor don't vote is accessability issues. I suspect it's more a problem of not having anything worth voting for. When it's essentially a choice between two slick jackasses in suits, neither of which represent your interests, why even bother voting?
Absolutely not. The right to abstain is as important as the right to choose one of the listed candidates. If you force people to pick one of the listed office-seekers when none of them represent that person's beliefs, you might as well hold a gun to their head and make them choose a particular candidate.
You're right, it should tip them off that it's a scam. However, most people have atrocious spelling skills, and so would miss some of these errors (esp. asterisk). Second, once you get used to reading over spelling errors (i.e. over IM, in email, on /.), it becomes easier to read over spelling errors all the time. I don't think that people have contextual spelling error detection (tm). Rather, I think people have one "mode" of reading, and that their tolerance for spelling errors is growing as they read more unedited material. So ultimately, I don't think that people even saw the spelling errors, thus it didn't tip them off.
Good points. I'm one of those people who can spell, so the idea that someone can look at a bunch of misspelled words and not notice sometimes strikes me as inconceivable. Of course, then I run into the same thing (in reverse) from guys at work when they find out I don't know how to play "futbol"....
First off, "solid state" means "no moving/mechanical switching", which a room full of relays does not fit the definition of. Second, I seriously doubt that system is 100 years old-- more likely it's closer to 60, as 100 years ago most elevators were operated by a man in a silly uniform pulling a lever in the elevator car. Third, relay-and-solenoid elevator controls aren't more reliable than modern electronic systems. The reason people don't replace them is because the cost is usually prohibitive, and the failure rate on older systems isn't usually bad enough to warrant replacement. It generally comes down to a question of "do you want to call the elevator tech every 2 weeks at $250 a visit to fix bad relays, or plop down $80,000 for installation of a new UNIX based electronic controller?"
I think his point was that when customizing the interface becomes a need, it won't require anything even remotely resembling "coding" to customize it. Essentially, tools always appear to reduce the amount of of informational "buy in" necessary to achieve a given goal. I would be willing to wager that computer interface customizability will NEVER reach the point where one needs to learn a CLI in order to effectively adjust the system to one's needs. We passed that milestone back in '84, when the mass-migration of commodity computer systems to GUIs began. Flexibility and power notwithstanding, the Great Unwashed Masses will never again need to learn another CLI to use a computer. I'd lay money on that assertion.
True, ObPasc is an easier read when dealing with someone else's uncommented code. I think much of my dislike comes from having had to make changes to a crawling horror of a Pascal application that really needed to be re-done in C, if not C++.
That doesn't work because it assumes everyone wants the same things done to them. What do you do about (extreme example) someone who wants others to kill him? Sick person, but proper ethics wouldn't tell him to kill others.
Damn straight. I remember lying in the road with a shattered leg after getting hit on my motorcycle and having to tell people to get a blanket for when I go into shock. People want to help, but it's no good when all they can think to do is pull the keys out of your wrecked motorcycle and say "here's your keys, dude". Yeah, thanks, I'll be heading home soon with my shattered femur....
Working "with the military" during the Gulf War, huh? I can beat that pair with a full house. I was in the military. 98C01LF8 - Signal Intelligence Analyst(linguist)(tactical). I ended up playing "cleanup" in the desert after the first wave of my division passed through, and what I saw was mostly Soviet manufacture equipment. I have pictures of me standing next to the smoking wreck of a BTR-70. Which US company makes and exports the BTR-70, smart guy? Or how about the T-72? Or the BMP-2? Or the AK-fuckin'-47?
I personally believe my own eyes over what you heard your "department" may have been working on. But hey, you'll probably just say I'm making all this up, right? Doesn't matter. This is only /.
Elaborate please. It's still the best tool for whipping out large native Win32 apps.
I'd have to disagree on that one, man. I find C++ Builder has all the advantages of Delphi, but it's C++ rather than the abomination that is object pascal.
The Iraqi military was 70% Russian/Soviet equipment, %20 French, and %10 Other(mostly European). The French are well-known arms-whores. The US doesn't sell to countries it decides are "evil".
it looks like you still pay the price in Blood these days, but you honestly think the US went in there out of the good of their heart? When was the last time the US did something just out of pure humanism?
Kosovo? Somalia? I defy you to find ANY pressing national interest for the US in places like that.
Despite that there even is Photograhic evidence that Rumsfeld was shaking hands and telling jokes with Saddam.
(no debate is complete without a Hitler reference)
I'm sure Neville Chamberlain had a jolly time negotiating "peace in our time" with Hitler. National relationships change all the time. Furthermore, diplomacy is often about glad-handing the opposition while simultaneously letting him know through "back channels" that you could blow them to pieces if they get out of line.
Personally, the differences between them have always reminded me of that old Miller Lite beer commercial. You know the one where two groups of tough guys are arguing in a bowling alley about the beer's best quality. One side shouts "less filling!" then the other side shouts back "tastes great!" (repeat until 30 seconds are up). Meanwhile, I'm watching it and thinking "that shit's nasty; I'd rather have something else". But in the case of parties here in the US, we got Lite Beer only.
"Intelligence" and "learning ability" are both metrics of potential. Potential is largely irrelevant on its own. What makes it valuable is time spent gaining knowledge and experience. This is why 18 year olds aren't immediately drafted to serve in legislatures/parliaments.
Yet the young are condemned or ignored if they dare to be idealistic.
Idealism is easy when you have little knowledge or experience and can look at complex problems and view them as simple matters of principle. In principle, we shouldn't polute at all. In reality, even simple acts like making a cooking fire and taking a crap are polluting. The reason the young are laughed at for their idealism is because idealism handwaves much of reality.
The right to free speech only means that the government can't jail you for saying things it doesn't like. Free speech doesn't immunize you against people thinking you are an ass, nor does it prevent them from having second thoughts about your competence in the job they hired you for.
Of course, it IS commercial speech, which isn't nearly as protected as other speech...
Or perhaps they'll be able to emulate it even .
Not necessarily. Paper mail can be dealt with at whatever time is convenient for the recipient. Phone calls happen in real time. Saying that a short trip to the trash once in a while is not onerous depends heavily on the fact that said trip can be scheduled for convenience. Phone calls can't. Counter-arguments involving answering machines and voicemail aren't applicable because such things aren't part of standard phone service. Really, it'd require another judgment call. The previous ruling re:junt postal mail isn't entirely applicable.
You're saying that "licensing and screening" isn't the same as "controlled by laws"? Whatever, man. My point was that he was obviously taking the word "regulated" from the 2ndAmd to mean something other than what it meant to the writers of said Amd. Also, his interpretation of Article 1, Sec 8 as giving the gov't power to "regulate" the militia is incorrect-- it gives the government the power to organize people into a unit and give them guns and training, but by no means could this be interpretted to mean that ONLY the government can do so.
In fact is pretty much aggrees with the statement ... referring to "regular troops" (men who could shoot well)
"practiced and skilled"
i.e. licensing procedures to insure that owners of firearms are practiced and skilled.
What? That makes no sense. Licensing does absolutely nothing to promote skill, it is (by definition) strictly a limitation on access. Limiting access is exactly what the 2nd amendment prohibits!
Nice try, but agreeing on the side of the road we drive on is a safety issue. Wireless phone protocols are not. As for the voltage thing, please show me the government regulation that sets the voltage. Can't find it? That's because the market decided upon a standard, but only after the early providers fought it out with incompatible systems. Don't you know the whole Tesla's AC vs. Edison's DC story?
Next time, when you pull out arguments, pull them from a less stinky place.
People should expect/overlook spelling errors in something as ephemeral as a /. post. My point is, that something as important as a credit card info page by AOL would undoubtedly be proofread at least once, and thefact that it's rife with errors should have tipped them off that it was a scam. Cripes, I didn't say I was going to spell everything right in my post, did I? Get with the program, man.
Actually, that's not even the full question at hand. The real question is "should the NRA's political site be blocked, while their political opponent's site (on the same subject but with opposite opinions on that same suject) is NOT blocked. They're blocking the NRA Institute for Legislative Action's site, which is as boring a policy-pusher site as the Brady Campaign site that's NOT blocked. It's obviously some dingbat at Symantec's personal bias showing. But more to the point, none of this is the real issue! Symantec can block whatever they want. The only issue is whether public-funded agencies (e.g. libraries, schools) should be using blocking software with arbitrary personal opinions influencing the blocked site lists.
Hard to engage in rhetoric (speaking) while firing a machine gun. I understand you're making a (somewhat snide) point, but you fail in that shooting people is no more "pro-gun" than running people over is "pro-automobile".
heh. this one's getting copy-pasted for my collection. Good parody, man.